Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a43167887b2df689

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested move)

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page; however, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an experienced editor to approve of your new article or proposed rename, you are in the wrong place.

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.

  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
Administration needed

If your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators).

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests


The current name is the result of a February 2026 move discussion so the page ought to have a full Requested Move to take it back to iPad (A16). EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
As the others note, we will need a new RM. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 21:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
That is not a valid reason to change the title of the article. Nobody says "I'm reading a movie review about The Devil Wears Prada (film)" or "I saw Nirvana (band) in concert" either. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for why this happens in millions of article titles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
To be more fair than my younger self from yesterday, this type of article title has also become somewhat messy due to the recent efforts to straighten out WP:VIETPLACE, which now seems to be stable. I will point to the existing District (Vietnam) as a precedent for leaving the article in this request as-is. Also a plural word in the title, as in this reqeust, would imply that this is a list article but it is not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@DLU There is a disambiguation page already there. I wouldn't say that this is uncontroversially the main topic. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@PatG14850 In order to change an article's name to a new official name, you must demonstrate that a majority of new sources use the new name, per WP:NAMECHANGES. P.S. Do not edit the article more if you have a conflict of interest, and please declare it. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion on whether "Ion" should be capitalized for the time being, but the disambiguator for this article title should be "(company)" per precedent, which has been done for even the big boys like Amazon (company). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You could argue that Ion Television is a company, making Ion (company) ambiguous. As for ION (chocolate), that does appear to violate MOS:TMCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Peterark7 Contesting per above. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@RealBeyondCreator Actually, but should likely not be capitalized due to said guideline. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@KingArti This draft was just declined today. I would recommend waiting until more sources come out. Then, you can use those sources to improve the draft and resubmit it. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 23:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 30 September 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |new1=New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
  • |current2=Current title of page 2
  • |new2=New title for page 2
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 30 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 30 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 30 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2026‎ (UTC)reply

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
    Discussion
    Any additional comments:



    This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
    Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 30 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
    Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
    Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 30 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Commenting on a requested move

    All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

    • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
    • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
    • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
    • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

    When participating, please consider the following:

    • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
    • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
    • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
    • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
    • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
    • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

    Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions and the simple guide to closing requested move discussions before actually closing a requested move discussion. Requested move discussions should normally remain open for at least seven days (168 hours).

    Move requests may be closed early in special circumstances, primarily:

    • when the editor who suggested the move wishes to withdraw it, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when the request was initiated via block evasion, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when it is necessary to centralize related discussions that should have been part of a single multi-page discussion.
    • when the request repeats a recent discussion with a clear outcome, or a moratorium on move requests is in place for the page in question.
    • when the outcome of the move discussion is so certain that there is clearly no need to prolong discussion further.

    Relisting a requested move

    Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

    Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

    When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

    If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

    Notes

    1. ↑ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
    2. ↑ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

    Current discussions

    Shortcut
    This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 63 discussions have been relisted.

    September 30, 2026

    September 29, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 2026 Akçamezra tornado → 2026 Turkey tornado outbreak – This tornado alone fails WP:NTORNADO, as it has lackluster coverage and no coverage past 6+ months of the tornado occurring, especially because it hasn't even been six months since the event. I feel like the outbreak as a whole is more notable than just this tornado, despite this tornado also being historic for the region. While yes, it did get an IF4 rating, there were eight other significant (IF2+) tornadoes, including one IF2.5. Some of these tornadoes also caused more injuries than the IF4. Because of this, I propose that this article be moved back to the outbreak article, which for some reason was changed into this. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Qazaq Air → VietJet Qazaqstan – I'm surprised that this hasn't been moved yet, considering that the airline already rebranded a year ago. Recent news articles and the official website have mostly stopped referring to this airline as "Qazaq Air", though the "Qazaq Air" name still remains in the official company name. See these recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 RPC7778 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Table football → Foosball – The term "foosball" is widely used in North American English and is used by major dictionaries, media outlets, and professional tournament organizations. "Table football" is less common. This move request asks whether current reliable-source usage supports "Foosball" as the article's primary title under Wikipedia's common-name policy. HarvardToast (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – MS Pascal Lota → Pascal Lota – WP:NCSHIPS specifically: an article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name, if that name is unambiguous. Corsica Ferries , MarineTraffic and Shippax all describe without the MS prefix. Emethigg (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 28, 2026

    References

    1. ↑ "The Traitors on NBC". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    2. ↑ "Meet The Traitors Season 6 Cast! (Official Bios & Photos)". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    3. ↑ "The Traitors Cast 2027: See All 23 Celebrities in Season 6". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    JoyfullySmile (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. squawk7700 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Maamme → National anthem of FinlandNational anthem of Finland – I'd like to suggest that this article be renamed from "Maamme" to "National anthem of Finland" (currently a redirect). In an earlier section I proposed "Vårt land" instead, but after the reaction to that post from Robert, I think a descriptive title is the better solution. German Wikipedia uses "Nationalhymne Finnlands", partly so as not to privilege Finnish over Swedish. As Robert noted, newer English-language sources consistently call it "the Finnish national anthem", and the article no longer contains the one scholarly source that used "Vårt land" (Leffler 1918). Like National anthem of South Africa, this is a multilingual anthem with two competing native names (Maamme / Vårt land) and no single native-language title. "National anthem of Finland" avoids favouring either language, and redirects from both names would remain. A requested move to "Vårt land" closed in January 2020 with no consensus. This proposal is a different one: it does not pick between the two native names, but replaces both with a neutral English title. SamuelGBrander (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Seacret → Seacret Direct – The subject of this article is Seacret Direct LLC, a multi-level marketing company headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. The infobox trade name, the lead sentence, and the official website listed in the article (seacretdirect.com) all identify the subject as Seacret Direct. The bare title "Seacret" is ambiguous: SEACRET is also the name of Seacret Spa Ltd., an Israeli skincare company that is a separate legal entity with no ownership relationship to Seacret Direct LLC [Israeli Companies Registrar, company no. 514367473]. Seacret Direct LLC was a distributor for Seacret Spa Ltd. for many years; that relationship has ended. A precise title follows WP:PRECISION and prevents readers from confusing the two companies. Disclosure: I am the CEO of Seacret Spa Ltd. and have a conflict of interest, which is why I am requesting this move rather than making it. I am not requesting any change to the article's content. BOAZYAD (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 27, 2026

    • (Discuss) – The Pool of Arches → Pool of the Arches – The definite article ("the") at the front is unnecessary per WP:THE. On the other hand, "the" is needed before "Arches" as reliable sources refer to it pretty consistently as "Pool of the Arches", e.g.: * Nol 2022, p.108 (: "The Pool of the Arches in Ramla and its parallels comprise another type of subterranean installations, the water reservoirs.") * Darke 2024, p.213 (: "Only one of the four is open to visitors today, known as the Pool of the Arches, illuminated with eerie green and red lighting.") * Ashour 2026, pp.121-132 (: "The majority of physical evidence from the early Islamic period in Ramla is not accessible, with only two remaining monuments, namely the White Mosque and Birkat al-ʿAnaziyya (the “Pool of the Arches”).") * BBC 2022 (: "Its ceiling is supported by numerous pointed arches, which have given it the name ‘Pool of the Arches’.") Note that Atlas Obscura and various other random websites should not count as reliable sources (so they are not good evidence per WP:COMMONNAME), though one of these currently cited sources also uses "Pool of the Arches" (). R Prazeres (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 26, 2026

    • (Discuss) – GSC 02652-01324 → TrES-1 – Common usage favors "TrES-#" for these stars rather than the long, unmemorable GSC designations. The reason they're not used (and even redirect to different pages) is that the discoverers of these planetary systems used a non-standard naming scheme, assigning "TrES-#" only to the planet. SIMBAD is insistent on this nomenclature, but most sources don't follow it, instead calling the host star "TrES-#", the planet "TrES-#b" and additional components "TrES-#C" or similar. One article was already moved to "TrES-2A", we can just drop the "A" since it's about the entire (2 stars+planet) system after all. As an alternative, if we want to keep "TrES-#" redirecting to the planets, "TrES-# (star)" could be used. There are also variable star designations and the proper name Pipoltr, but those are even less used than the GSC designations, seemingly not appearing in the literature at all. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Jeanne and Richard Montbaston → Jeanne de Montbaston – There are precious few records of women working and creating in the medieval period that she deserves a page of her own, particularly since her illustrations in the pas de page of the Roman de la Rose are some of the most famous and widely known in both scholarly and popular culture. Giving her her own page combats the trend of subsuming women's work under their husbands', which is precisely why we do not have more records of the women who were responsible for significant cultural production throughout history. A name change would valorize Jeanne's work as an artist in her own right and help historians and students of women's history. Mouny Mounawar.abbouchi (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Mounawar.abbouchi (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 25, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Ladino → Ladino (disambiguation) – There have been multiple RMs over at Judaeo-Spanish over whether the page should be moved to Ladino. Those extensive discussions have ended in no consensus. I don't think I'll open that can of worms right now. However, Ladino is clearly a a primary-redirect to Judaeo-Spanish. It receives about 70% of views of all topics on the page. (Wikinav is currently broken for me, expect the same to show). The last RM at Judeo-Spanish had strong support for it being the primary topic of Ladino, but this page was never notified in the last one 1brianm7 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    References

    1. ↑ Ray, V. E., Randolph, A., Underhill, M., & Luke, D. (2017). Critical Race Theory, Afro-Pessimism, and Racial Progress Narratives. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217692557
    2. ↑ Zamansele Nsele. “Part I: ‘Afropessimism’ and the Rituals of Anti-Black Violence.” Mail & Guardian, 24 June 2020, https://mg.co.za/friday/2020-06-24-part-i-afropessimism-and-the-rituals-of-anti-black-violence/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2026.
    3. ↑ "Byd Seal 6 Plug-In Hybrid review: A cushy ride with impressive fuel economy, well-built cabin". AsiaOne. 2026-08-02. Retrieved 2026-09-25. Could this Byd Seal 6 DM-i be the next car to take top honours for the segment?
    4. ↑ "BYD Seal 6 Touring plug-in hybrid goes far to muscle out rival car brands". The Straits Times. 2026-09-18. ISSN 0585-3923. Retrieved 2026-09-25. Enter the Seal 6 DM-i Touring.
    5. ↑ Chia, Ben (2026-07-03). "BYD Seal 6 DM-i review". AutoApp. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    6. ↑ Caluag, Billy (2026-04-07). "The new BYD Seal 6 DM-i Touring can drive up to 300km on just electric power". Top Gear Philippines. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    7. ↑ "2026 BYD Seal 6 DM-i review: Quick drive". CarExpert. 2025-12-06. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    8. ↑ "BYD Seal 6 Touring PHEV could pave the way for Australian family wagon comeback". Drive. Retrieved 2026-09-25. Chinese new-energy vehicle manufacturer BYD has officially launched the BYD Seal 6 DM-i Touring in the UK.
    9. ↑ Taylor-Jones, Alan; Wilkinson, Luke (2025-12-05). "BYD Seal 6 DM-i saloon (2026) review: rough around the edges". CAR Magazine. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    10. ↑ "I've been driving the BYD Seal 6 DM-i – here's my honest review". The Independent. 2025-11-28. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    11. ↑ "BYD Seal 6 DM-i Touring - PHEV wagon version of Seal 06 can lug up to 1,535 litres, 1,350 km total range - paultan.org". Paul Tan's Automotive News. 2026-01-02. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    12. ↑ "UK Electric Vehicle Sales Rise to Record High Amid Fuel Price Rise". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on 2026-04-09. Retrieved 2026-09-25. A detail of a BYD Seal 6 DM-i Touring SUV. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg
    13. ↑ Evans, Jack (2025-11-07). "BYD's Seal 6 DM-i Saloon and Touring go on sale in the UK". The Irish News. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
    14. ↑ "BYD Seal 6 estate and saloon announced". The Car Expert. 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2026-09-25. BYD is expanding its range in the UK with its latest model, the Seal 6 DM-i – a plug-in hybrid model available as both a saloon and an estate.
    S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 24, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Mineng → Menang – As far as I have seen, the vast majority of modern sources refer to this group as the Menang people. People who read about anything to do with the Menang people are most likely going to look up "Menang" rather than "Mineng" nowadays. For instance, this spelling is used by news articles,[1][2] the local government area of Albany,[3] the state government of Western Australia,[4] Menang-led and Noongar-led organisations,[5][6][7] museum exhibitions,[8][9] and research articles.[10][11]

    References

    Thestorkjob (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Bórd na Móna → BnMBnM – Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should reflect the name most commonly used in reliable sources rather than necessarily the legal entity name. Since the 2025 rebrand[1] [2], the organisation has adopted BnM as its primary public-facing identity, with its website[3], branding and corporate communications [4] consistently referring to the company as BnM. Independent media sources have also reported that Bord na Móna "changes its name to BnM". The fact that the legal entity may remain Bord na Móna plc does not preclude a move, as Wikipedia routinely titles articles based on common usage rather than corporate registration names. Bord na Móna can continue to be referenced in the lead and infobox as the former and/or legal name, while BnM better reflects the organisation's current identity and usage in contemporary sources.

    References

    Lightgarden81 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 23, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Premier of the Republic of China → Premier of Taiwan – The rationale for a proposed move here are threefold, each corresponding to a Wikipedia policy: # Common usage (WP:COMMONNAME): #* Most reliable sources use Taiwan premier, Taiwan's premier, or Taiwanese premier (and likewise for the vice premier) to refer to the office. Similar to the name of the country, these have been the commonly WP:recognizable names and continues to be the case. #* Whenever "Premier of the Republic of China" is used by reliable media, it almost always refers to an official in the 1928-1948 historical era, consistent with the Taiwan/Republic of China (1912–1949) split, more in reason #3 below. #* If there was an argument to use the official name of the title, that would be "President of the Executive Yuan," rather than Premier of the Republic of China. # Consistency with other articles (WP:CONSISTENT): #* Many other countries have similar naming complications, so it isn't the case that Taiwan/ROC has a unique situation that prevents its public offices from being described in a commonly recognizable way: #** Obviously China and Premier of China are a pairing that serves as a related and relevant precedent; a move here would not only be consistent with the parallel office, but also naturally clarifying/disambiguating. #** Prime Minister of South Korea, rather than "Prime Minister for State Affairs" or "Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea" #** Prime Minister of Greece, rather than "President of the Government" or even "Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic" #* The main country article for this office is in fact Taiwan, not Republic of China (1912–1949) or China. Just as other institutions may have moved geographically from the ROC founding to Taiwan, we can treat each case based on what the primary topic is and whether the historical context trumps current usage. In this case, it is clear-cut to me. It makes more sense to me to redirect "premier of the ROC" for pre-1949 historical officeholders to a premier of Taiwan page that includes historical context, rather than the other way around. Just to quantify the history, the ROC "in mainland China" is 37 years, and this office's existence until that point is 21 years; premiers have been operating out of Taiwan for 77 years. # Challenges to exceptions as previously discussed: #* In the most recent RM (primarily for the president page), a typical argument against common recognizable name was these titles predate their modern usage. Since the primary topic of this page is not the office in its first 20 years, it is reasonable to give its history due treatment (like we do in Taiwan and its other institutions that may have come from the ROC) but move the page title to a more appropriate commonly used name. To disregard current (and for at least 4-5 decades) usage in favor of an antiquated title in the name of continuity does not give due weight to the way things already are and the way things are are described by reliable sources. #** It may be worth noting, from a conceptual level, that most things predate their names in general. We don't stop calling maize that just because the English (or Spanish) name came centuries after it had been well-known to local communities prior to Europeans arriving in the Americas. #* The complexity of the two states with the same name supports a move from Premier of China to "Premier of the People's Republic of China" and does not contradict a move from this page to "Premier of Taiwan." If anything, it actually supports and disambiguates the two better to move this page. The premiership is the primary topic, the name of the country is the descriptor; again, the latter is Taiwan (the more recognizable descriptor) and has been for decades. Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Shiv Sena (2022) → Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) – All the major media houses and media coverage covers the two factions of Shiv Sena that were split in 2022 by the names Uddhav bloc (the SHS-UBT) and this bloc as Eknath Shinde block or Shinde bloc. The name Shiv Sena (2022) is confusing, completely ambiguous and incorrectly suggests that there are two "Shiv senas" but actually the dispute pending in Supreme Court is to establish who continues the legacy of Shivsena, be ut Shinde bloc or UBT bloc, that can be decided later, but by the convention of Common names and the name commonly used in media reports or common discussion, Shiv Sena (2022) is completely ambiguous. I propose renaming and moving to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) until final consensus over the successor of the political party that was named Shiv Sena is determined by law and media accepts such recognition. Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1377543390"